Melbourne are better than you think!

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I would love to be one of the teams playing Melbourne in the last few weeks -- stuff like this can end up determining the make-up and order of the final 8 and final 4, and with the competition so even that percentage can determine your final placing, it's just a joke. As if the draw wasn't uneven enough...

I work with a passionate Dees supporter & he reckons they'd have to have rocks in their head if they won 5 games!

[LostDoggy]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I work with a passionate Dees supporter & he reckons they'd have to have rocks in their head if they won 5 games!

And you would have to agree, wouldn't you? Makes me feel dirty just thinking about it. Always thought the point of a sport was to play your best at all times and win as often as you could.

Well, one of the unintended side-effects of unthinking socialism is that it rewards those who intentionally reside at the bottom of the barrel -- as all economists can tell you, people will adjust their behaviour according to the incentive provided. The reverse draft order provides an incentive for finishing at the bottom of the ladder.

You see that now with all these long-term 5 year plans where clubs actually PLAN to finish at the bottom for a couple of years to pick up some early draftees. We even have a term for it now: "bottoming out". At any point in time you have up to 5 teams intentionally 'bottoming out' so you have nearly half the competition intentionally being mediocre so that they can have access to next year's top draftees. Talk about a race to the bottom.

The absurdity of the situation also manifests itself in the ludicrous situation of Mark Harvey and Paul Roos actually being criticised for strengthening their teams to win games, while Dean Bailey and Alistair Clarkson (and the hierarchy at Carlton) are hailed as geniuses for deliberately finishing last a couple of times. (It has become the 'accepted' norm now, and seen as 'smart coaching', but I submit that it's actually a mockery of sport to praise teams for finishing last).

What was the phrase? "Capitalism may be the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."

---

ps. I understand that there needed to be some equalisation to prevent clubs like the Dogs and North from sliding into oblivion, but there HAS to be a better solution that does not provide incentive to DELIBERATELY finish bottom; AND better performance shouldn't be penalised over worse performance (Richmond shouldn't be penalised for regularly finishing higher than Melbourne, for example). I really don't understand the AFL's adversion to a random draw with the bottom team having a higher probability -- but not a guarantee -- of a high draft pick, ala the NBA.

pps. At some point, there should be reward for better performance -- as much as it pains me to admit, Collingwood deserve more money if they draw more people to their games, and North Melbourne don't really deserve anything for only getting 14,000 to a Saturday night game. Equality in this case doesn't equal fairness. Fair would be the bigger drawing team getting more money than the lower drawing team. Eugene Arrocca wants money for nothing.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

If that doesn't compromise the integrity of a competition I don't know what does.. if Melbourne is on 4 wins come the last 5 weeks of the season, their last 5 games will be absolutely and utterly a farce, tantamount to match-fixing in essence, as there is no way in hell they'll win those games, and you know what: with the system the way it is, who can blame them?
.

It i was betfair or whomever, and Melbourne are in a like position, unlike Beaser, I wouldn't take any bets whatsoever. Suspend betting on Melbourne games and have it over. We talk in jest about taking a dive, choking or (Terry Wallace...) playing kids, that's not the same as tanking. But it is arguably matchfixing.

With so much gambling money out there, if clubs tank and effectively matchfix, what the hell is going to happen?

[ledge]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I think 9th should get the number 1 pick 10th number 2 etc, that way sides who arent going well will try and win.
Dont the Premier league in the UK also work on the higher up the ladder the more money you get?
I am sure their are ways to fix the tanking.

[Mofra]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

as all economists can tell you, people will adjust their behaviour according to the incentive provided.

...and sociologists

I understand that there needed to be some equalisation to prevent clubs like the Dogs and North from sliding into oblivion, but there HAS to be a better solution that does not provide incentive to DELIBERATELY finish bottom;

I wouldn't say the system is totally flawed, however the priority pick issue makes the problem (and subsequent temptation) much worse. I don't think the priority pick should be awarded at all.

[The Pie Man]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I felt for Rivers yesterday, quality player dogged by injuries. Facing the reality of that against us though, he may not have had an obvious matchup anyway.

Dees were very brave yesterday, and I would love Miller in our side. Worth remembering that WCE had plenty more scoring shots though - in the last quarter it was like they were willing Melbourne to win with a heap of really silly turnovers, but a goal to Petterd was all they could muster in the last 8 mins of play.

Underestimate them at our peril, but we really should be winning this one. It is worth remembering Hawthorn may have felt the same before the Essendon game last week as well.

[Topdog]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

The Dees are better than I thought but they are still the worst team in the league.

WC are very inconsistent though. Was surprised at how poor they looked at times and their playing on in the last quarter was beyond stupid.

[Scraggers]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

The Dees are better than I thought but they are still the worst team in the league.

WC are very inconsistent though. Was surprised at how poor they looked at times and their playing on in the last quarter was beyond stupid.

Agreed, but with Priddis a late 'out' and Kerr injured, thet had very little drive out of the centre and little if no direction

[azabob]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I think 9th should get the number 1 pick 10th number 2 etc, that way sides who arent going well will try and win.
Dont the Premier league in the UK also work on the higher up the ladder the more money you get?
I am sure their are ways to fix the tanking.

I dont agree at all. Maybe if you limit it to 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th and its a lottery system.
But how can you say Richmond and Melbourne are tanking for draft picks? They are clearly in the bottom four teams in the league.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

I think it should be lottery system from 9th to 16th.Also I believe they should scrap the priority pick

[boydogs]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

This is why the reverse order drafting rule + all the priority rubbish is so ridiculous though, because it puts clubs in an awkward position every year of having to question whether or not they should be winning!

If that doesn't compromise the integrity of a competition I don't know what does.. if Melbourne is on 4 wins come the last 5 weeks of the season, their last 5 games will be absolutely and utterly a farce, tantamount to match-fixing in essence, as there is no way in hell they'll win those games, and you know what: with the system the way it is, who can blame them?

This was always going to happen -- a team will start to come good just before their time, and start to get close in a few games, but jeapordise their chance at a couple of young guns. What does the club do? Melbourne are damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The AFL can stick their heads in the sand as they like to, but the fact that the tanking debate comes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR tells me that something obviously stinks with the drafting system as it stands.

Summed up perfectly as usual Lantern. I'm a believer though that if you are going to criticise you should offer an alternative - how does this sound:

Create a draft pick ladder, whereby losses count as wins for the first 15 rounds but for the last 7 rounds wins count as wins.

This will reduce tanking at the end of the season where teams are clearly out of finals contention, but still assist teams who are struggling to rebuild.

Could even change it to 17/5 - but please lets make the next 'Bryce Gibbs Cup' go to the winner of the game and not the loser

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

It's not complicated. Just scrap priority picks altogether.

Is there really any difference in picks 1, 2 & 3?

Johnstone, Ottens or Croad?
Hodge, Ball or Judd?
Deledio, Roughead or Griffen?

Some years - like 2003 - 1st pick is important, but how often do you hear the club with pick 2 or 3 say "we rated him no. 1". Essendon said that when they took Ryder at 8.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

It's not complicated. Just scrap priority picks altogether.

Is there really any difference in picks 1, 2 & 3?

Johnstone, Ottens or Croad?
Hodge, Ball or Judd?
Deledio, Roughead or Griffen?

Some years - like 2003 - 1st pick is important, but how often do you hear the club with pick 2 or 3 say "we rated him no. 1". Essendon said that when they took Ryder at 8.

Agree on scrapping priority pick...

But Roughead and Griffen are worth much more than Deledio, I reckon...

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

But Roughead and Griffen are worth much more than Deledio, I reckon...

That's my point. Most drafts no-one really knows if pick 1, 2 or 3 will be the best 5 years down the track, so what incentive is there to tank?

Who will be the better player of Watts, Naitanui or Hill? If Melbourne had finished 3rd last they would probably still got Watts.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Melbourne are better than you think!

That's my point. Most drafts no-one really knows if pick 1, 2 or 3 will be the best 5 years down the track, so what incentive is there to tank?

Who will be the better player of Watts, Naitanui or Hill? If Melbourne had finished 3rd last they would probably still got Watts.

Ah, sorry, I get ya now... I've got a cold (my excuse and I'm sticking to it!)